Search Store Applications

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral value by explaining the three tab_context modes and that the tool lists/browses rather than mutates. It does not detail result structure or API specifics, but the added tab contexts go beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a three-item bullet list for tab contexts, and a one-sentence usage line. It is front-loaded with the key action and contains no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the fully documented schema, read-only annotations, and a description covering purpose, tab contexts, and use cases provide sufficient guidance. It does not explain return formats or differentiate from sibling tools like get_app_details, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the browse operation keep the gap small.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including the enum values for tab_context. The description repeats the tab_context semantics (e.g., 'installed' → list all installed store applications) but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Search or browse ServiceNow store applications by category,' clearly specifying the action (search/browse), resource (store applications), and scope (category). It then enumerates three tab contexts, distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_app_details (fetches a single app) and install_store_app (installs an app).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to discover what is installed, find available updates, or browse for new applications to install.' This gives clear context on when to invoke the tool, but it does not name alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_app_details for a specific app'), so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.